I'm genuinely surprised by the negative reviews of the Studio Display

[CalMin]

I agree that it running iOS seems short sighted, and I kind of wish that didn't happen. However, if it stopped getting updates I'm not sure it would cease working. It still must be recognized as a generic screen device since it works on windows, right?

Good point. I guess I don't understand what the A13 does and keep thinking that it is somehow involved in the basic display functionality!

The extra 400 for height display is really offensive. While I don't have budget limits, I won't accept that kind of crazy gouging.
It's a good display. It should have been 30" or 32" and it should have a height adjustment that doesn't cost 400 bucks. Apple will still sell these, but not to me.

Robert

Agree on the $400 upgrade for height adjustment - which is just silly. It's an over-engineered solution which makes sense on a $5,000 display but doesn't really scale down to this end of the market when it is not paid for by work.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I agree that it running iOS seems short sighted, and I kind of wish that didn't happen. However, if it stopped getting updates I'm not sure it would cease working. It still must be recognized as a generic screen device since it works on windows, right?

Running iOS means it’s not some esoteric one-off firmware. As such, a developer doesn’t need to know anything special to be transferred to the “monitor” team in Apple. And, if they have contractors developing it, they can just hire a contractor that knows iOS. It makes it simpler to support down the road.

 

[zach-coleman]

Running iOS means it’s not some esoteric one-off firmware. As such, a developer doesn’t need to know anything special to be transferred to the “monitor” team in Apple. And, if they have contractors developing it, they can just hire a contractor that knows iOS. It makes it simpler to support down the road.

It's still a monitor with almost zero smart features. I'm kind of glad about this as I find most smart screens to have nothing but bloatware on them, but it doesn't seem like the display getting updates has done it a lot of good. What could they really add to it? No Wifi/Bluetooth capabilities. That strikes out most concepts for feature updates. It also has to wait on iOS/MacOS updates in order to get patches if for whatever reason it does need them due to using IOS.

And I mean, apparently the camera is officially only screwed up because of a last minute error added to its release firmware which is only now getting fixed 1.5 months later. It just seems ill-advised.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It's still a monitor with almost zero smart features. I'm kind of glad about this as I find most smart screens to have nothing but bloatware on them, but it doesn't seem like the display getting updates has done it a lot of good. What could they really add to it? No Wifi/Bluetooth capabilities. That strikes out most concepts for feature updates. It also has to wait on iOS/MacOS updates in order to get patches if for whatever reason it does need them due to using IOS.

And I mean, apparently the camera is officially only screwed up because of a last minute error added to its release firmware which is only now getting fixed 1.5 months later. It just seems ill-advised.

The major benefit is mostly in “cheaper and easier for Apple to support over time”. The bug in the camera? There are a few hundred developers in Apple that could fix it and a few million developers in the world that could fix it, likely without much up front documentation, mainly because it’s iOS. The 1.5 month fix could even be a shortened window due to how well iOS is understood.

There HAD to be some chip to drive it/capture video/play audio, and there HAD to be some OS for that chip. Any decision other than Apple silicon and iOS would mean harder to support from day 1 AND over time. Yes, this 1.5 month hiccup is bad for them. But, over the 5 year or longer run of the monitor, supporting some version of iOS is still better than supporting a one-off OS.

 

[d_ganggreen]

I am a bit curious though….technically with 600nits, the display could do HDR. I am wondering if it is possible with a software/firmware update?

 

[enricoclaudio]

I am a bit curious though….technically with 600nits, the display could do HDR. I am wondering if it is possible with a software/firmware update?

The ASD does HDR. YouTube and even Apple TV+ recognize it as HDR display. I can play all my HDR Apple TV+ Movies and they look great, better than in my LG 4K HDR monitor. However, you have to set brightness all the way up in the ASD to get the HDR effect.

 

[CalMin]

I am a bit curious though….technically with 600nits, the display could do HDR. I am wondering if it is possible with a software/firmware update?

The ASD does HDR. YouTube and even Apple TV+ recognize it as HDR display. I can play all my HDR Apple TV+ Movies and they look great, better than in my LG 4K HDR monitor. However, you have to set brightness all the way up in the ASD to get the HDR effect.

I guess this begs the question "What is HDR?". The ASD looks better than some HDR displays that I have seen.

I had a Samsung M7 which (on paper) supports HDR10 but could only do 250 nits of brightness. I guess I don't really understand how 250 nits can claim HDR because I tried viewing lots of media on it and just found it dull and washed out. I returned it after less than a week. Admittedly, this was a cheap $300 panel, so expectations were low to begin with, but even with that I just couldn't bring myself to keep as even a secondary display or bedroom TV.

The ASD holds it's own against even the mini-LED XDR on the MacBook Pro. I mean sure, the deep black levels and max brightness are inferior, but overall content looks amazing on it - even side by side. It certainly looks more "HDR" than Samsung's HDR10 but that's because 250nits vs 600 nits aren't even close.

 

[enricoclaudio]

I guess this begs the question "What is HDR?". The ASD looks better than some HDR displays that I have seen.

I had a Samsung M7 which (on paper) supports HDR10 but could only do 250 nits of brightness. I guess I don't really understand how 250 nits can claim HDR because I tried viewing lots of media on it and just found it dull and washed out. I returned it after less than a week. Admittedly, this was a cheap $300 panel, so expectations were low to begin with, but even with that I just couldn't bring myself to keep as even a secondary display or bedroom TV.

The ASD holds it's own against even the mini-LED XDR on the MacBook Pro. I mean sure, the deep black levels and max brightness are inferior, but overall content looks amazing on it - even side by side. It certainly looks more "HDR" than Samsung's HDR10 but that's because 250nits vs 600 nits aren't even close.

That is correct. HDR Specular Highlights in the ASD look AMAZING!! Unfortunately the lack of local dimming make blacks look a bit washed-out but most definitely HDR content looks much better than most 4K HDR monitors out there, including some VESA HDR600 Certified. In a side by side comparison between the ASD and the LG 32UN880-B, which is HDR10, the ASD looks much better when showing HDR content.

 

[theluggage]

Good point. I guess I don't understand what the A13 does and keep thinking that it is somehow involved in the basic display functionality!

It's nothing unusual for a higher-end display to have some sort of processor in it (and hence require firmware) even if it's only for 'control' purposes - since that's generally more economical than including loads of discrete circuitry to handle control etc. The Thunderbolt Display certainly had firmware. I think people are placing far too much significance on the SD having an A13 chip and (apparently) running iOS (maybe just the kernel and a few relevant frameworks) - that's just Apple sensibly not re-inventing the wheel.

I have no idea whether or not the A13 in the SD is used for "basic" things like video scaling (e.g. 4k to 5k when you plug in some iPads) but that's certainly true of many 4k TVs that include powerful (usually) ARM-based SoCs - they don't just get used for the obvious "smart" features.

No iOS device ever just stopped working because the iOS version got too old - although it may well have been unable to run the latest apps or lost compatibility with some (maybe critical) online service, or had some critical security vulnerability, but that's irrelevant to s Studio Display that doesn't directly connect to a network and doesn't have user-installable Apps. It's established that the SD will even work as a display with PCs.

My previous LCD TV stopped receiving updates after a couple of years and rapidly became useless for running the built-in Netflix etc. apps but it never ceased functioning as a basic TV or display for external media players... and Apple have a better track record for supporting iOS on older devices than many other phone/TV/etc. makers.

There's no guarantee that future versions of MacOS won't lose support for some of the fancy features of the display - or at least the webcam or sound - but doing that in the foreseeable future would be a very shabby move by Apple, and is a risk with any hardware. Heck, good luck charging your new MagSafe 3 MacBook Pro from the MagSafe 1 connector on the Thunderbolt display...

Using iOS rather than some one-off custom firmware gives Apple less excuse for not keeping it updated.

 

[bluespark]

It's nothing unusual for a higher-end display to have some sort of processor in it (and hence require firmware) even if it's only for 'control' purposes - since that's generally more economical than including loads of discrete circuitry to handle control etc. The Thunderbolt Display certainly had firmware. I think people are placing far too much significance on the SD having an A13 chip and (apparently) running iOS (maybe just the kernel and a few relevant frameworks) - that's just Apple sensibly not re-inventing the wheel.

I have no idea whether or not the A13 in the SD is used for "basic" things like video scaling (e.g. 4k to 5k when you plug in some iPads) but that's certainly true of many 4k TVs that include powerful (usually) ARM-based SoCs - they don't just get used for the obvious "smart" features.

No iOS device ever just stopped working because the iOS version got too old - although it may well have been unable to run the latest apps or lost compatibility with some (maybe critical) online service, or had some critical security vulnerability, but that's irrelevant to s Studio Display that doesn't directly connect to a network and doesn't have user-installable Apps. It's established that the SD will even work as a display with PCs.

My previous LCD TV stopped receiving updates after a couple of years and rapidly became useless for running the built-in Netflix etc. apps but it never ceased functioning as a basic TV or display for external media players... and Apple have a better track record for supporting iOS on older devices than many other phone/TV/etc. makers.

There's no guarantee that future versions of MacOS won't lose support for some of the fancy features of the display - or at least the webcam or sound - but doing that in the foreseeable future would be a very shabby move by Apple, and is a risk with any hardware. Heck, good luck charging your new MagSafe 3 MacBook Pro from the MagSafe 1 connector on the Thunderbolt display...

Using iOS rather than some one-off custom firmware gives Apple less excuse for not keeping it updated.

Yes -- the use of this chip has been weirdly reported and weirdly interpreted. Anything other than a dumb screen has to have a processor. This has to have one for things like Center Stage, Siri, and surround audio features, among others. Apple has A13 chips, has working kernels on those chips, has an established economy of scale working with them, has fewer IP-related headaches working with them, and generally knows what to do with them. They are a perfect choice.

If all updates forever ceased, the ASD would continue to have a natural life working just as it does now.

 

[Quu]

The problem is that it's a bad monitor, and Apple has the gall to charge $1600 for it. It currently has 4 things going for it:

1. 5k resolution
2. True-tone
3. Center Stage
4. Color accuracy

The problem is that, most people don't care about center stage. How often are you rolling back and forth in your chair while in a zoom meeting. Like wise, you get to pick color accuracy or true tone, but not both. So really, you're left with the nice 5k resolution that costs $1600 and "good color", whatever that means to you.

But wait. I have a 1440p monitor, and Windows looks great on it. That's because Windows uses vector graphics, and can scale to whatever size you need. Apple chose to use doubling and then scaling, which is crap at non-native resolutions, thereby forcing the user into a non-normal 5k resolution instead of a more normal 4k screen.

So to summarize, Apple created a scaling problem that requires a 5k monitor to fix. Apple then produces the "fix" in the form of a $1600 monitor that isn't even all that great, with the exception of the panel itself.

But wait. That's not all. Look at what you can get from other monitors if you aren't trapped by Apple's completely standard yet horribly proprietary screen resolution:

• HDR
• FreeSync
• GSync
• USB-A ports
• Removable/replaceable power cable
• Multiple inputs
• Display output via MST
• Stand height adjustment
• Removable stand for VESA mounting
• 120hz, 144hz, or higher refresh rates
• Better panel types

I recently bought a Dell U2723QE.

It cost £573 vs £1,499 for the Apple.

It has 90 Watt USB-C charging for my laptop. A built in Gigabit ethernet port, it's DCI-P3 certified with 1.07 Billion colours, 4K resolution, has a thinner bezel than the Studio, has a removable stand and vesa mount built in behind the stand.. with included screws. It has a plethora of USB-A and USB-C ports including ones that do 19 Watts power delivery for a high powered accessory..

I mean I could get three of these Dells for only £150 more than a single Apple display.. and of course the Dell has an internal power supply like the Mac Studio but has a normal removable power cord.

As a bonus it supports daisy chaining so you can run two monitors from a single USB-C cable to your laptop which would also charge it and provide access to that Gigabit ethernet built into the monitor... plus all its other inputs (HDMI, standard Display Port). And did I mention it has a KVM built in too?

But you know I would have given all this up if Apple had just made this Studio Display an XDR. HDR with 1000 Nits with lighting array like my 16" MacBook Pro and I would have been sold. I just want a reasonable 27" sized display with high spec I don't mind paying £2,000 for it.

But £1,499 for this .. it's way too much. There are just so many other more competitive displays at half the price. Apple has to differentiate more if they want to charge these high prices in my opinion.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

But £1,499 for this .. it's way too much. There are just so many other more competitive displays at half the price. Apple has to differentiate more if they want to charge these high prices in my opinion.

The big differentiator is 5K. That elevates them into a market where there’s only two options. They are communicating, in effect, if a 5K external monitor is NOT a requirement, please buy from another vendor.

 

[Quu]

The big differentiator is 5K. That elevates them into a market where there’s only two options. They are communicating, in effect, if a 5K external monitor is NOT a requirement, please buy from another vendor.

I totally see your point but I have to say I cannot tell the difference between a 4K with the 2560x1440 desktop size and a native 5K at the same 2560x1440 desktop size. Like sure there is a PPI improvement but it's so small. This isn't like going from 1080p to 4K or even 1440p to 4K. 4K to 5K is such a small difference at the 27" display size.

I'm not saying it's not better or it's not an improvement. But I just don't see that high up on my list of desirables. Like for me I am the target market for this display. 16" M1 Max laptop. I am willing to spend £2,000 on a high-end display to pair with it but Apples option is just not high end enough.

Like where is the MiniLED backlight with 10,000 zones like my laptop has? - I'd rather spend £573 on a 4K panel that has all the other features I want and wait for Apple to deliver a 27" XDR to be honest.

I also feel like the lack of a removable power cord and the inability to change the stand once you buy it is a nonstarter at any price. Like my Dell literally comes with a full height, swivel, pan and tilt stand with a VESA mount behind it. Like I instantly took the stand off and put it on my VESA mount but when in a few years I want to get rid of the monitor I'll put it back on the stand to do so, I'm not going to carry the monitor and place it face down am I? - This is why I want the stand.

But I dunno, I just don't get Apples thinking with this thing. I think £699 would be reasonable, £799 if the power cord and stand was fixed to be like all other monitors in existence. I don't think the 4K to 5K upgrade is worth more than £799. Certainly not £1499.. I mean .. gosh even just reading that for the spec is laughable, this isn't even a new panel the Dell 4K I have is using the new LG IPS Black technology with 2000:1 contrast ratio. The 5K in this Studio Display is 1000:1 old IPS from 2017 it's just... gosh what a joke really.

 

[palmor]

But you know I would have given all this up if Apple had just made this Studio Display an XDR. HDR with 1000 Nits with lighting array like my 16" MacBook Pro and I would have been sold. I just want a reasonable 27" sized display with high spec I don't mind paying £2,000 for it.

The problem is that it won't be $2k. The Asus 27" PA27UCX-K 4k miniLED with 576 zones @60hz is $3k so anything like that (with more dimming zones and higher refresh rate) is probably going to only go up from there (especially since it will be 5k). The Asus 32" 4k version with 1152 zones and 120Hz is $5k, so XDR display territory cost wise.

 

[Quu]

The problem is that it won't be $2k. The Asus 27" PA27UCX-K 4k miniLED with 576 zones @60hz is $3k so anything like that (with more dimming zones and higher refresh rate) is probably going to only go up from there (especially since it will be 5k). The Asus 32" 4k version with 1152 zones and 120Hz is $5k, so XDR display territory cost wise.

By that thinking my laptop the 16" MacBook Pro should be $7,000.

But they start at just $2499 for the 16". And that comes with an entire computer with the display. No one can convince me that just the display on its own should need to cost more than $2499 (roughly £1999 in USD).

Take out the computer, expand the size to 27", I think the M1 chip, the ram, the thunderbolt, the keyboard and trackpad, battery, all the auxiliary chips, the SSD and so on can more than make up for the cost of just having a XDR display and I'm not even asking for it to be 120Hz like the laptops ones, 60Hz is fine.

I mean guys, Alienware (aka Dell) just released an OLED ultrawide desktop monitor that is 1000 nits peak brightness with per pixel lighting zones. For $1,299. OLED. 1 Million to 1 contrast ratio. I think Apple could do the same with years old IPS tech and an LED board when they don't need to worry about thickness for $2,499.

 

[zach-coleman]

By that thinking my laptop the 16" MacBook Pro should be $7,000.

I mean guys, Alienware (aka Dell) just released an OLED ultrawide desktop monitor that is 1000 nits peak brightness with per pixel lighting zones. For $1,299. OLED. 1 Million to 1 contrast ratio. I think Apple could do the same with years old IPS tech and an LED board when they don't need to worry about thickness for $2,499.

You’re severely under estimating how much it costs to add 11 entire diagonal inches to a display. I wish we lived in a world where I found the Studio Display to be unbelievably overpriced garbage, but in the world we live in that isn’t the case. The monitor market is a travesty and considering apple cannot make their own panels they can’t exactly do a lot about it and still make money.

TVs are only so cheap because they’re a platform to sell you ads, which is how they cover their large screen sizes. This is likely why Samsung is pushing sponsored reviews of their M7/M8 monitor so much.

OLED also seems to be cursed at higher sizes than phones, but I admit I don’t know how they manage it so easily on TVs. Maybe the density?

 

[palmor]

By that thinking my laptop the 16" MacBook Pro should be $7,000.

But they start at just $2499 for the 16". And that comes with an entire computer with the display. No one can convince me that just the display on its own should need to cost more than $2499 (roughly £1999 in USD).

Take out the computer, expand the size to 27", I think the M1 chip, the ram, the thunderbolt, the keyboard and trackpad, battery, all the auxiliary chips, the SSD and so on can more than make up for the cost of just having a XDR display and I'm not even asking for it to be 120Hz like the laptops ones, 60Hz is fine.

I mean guys, Alienware (aka Dell) just released an OLED ultrawide desktop monitor that is 1000 nits peak brightness with per pixel lighting zones. For $1,299. OLED. 1 Million to 1 contrast ratio. I think Apple could do the same with years old IPS tech and an LED board when they don't need to worry about thickness for $2,499.

The MacBook is only 16” and 3024x1964… I don’t think you can draw any comparisons to 27” 4k and 5k screens. The Asus 27” is the closest thing (that I can think of) to what people want and it’s $3k.

The Alienware is only 1440 resolution and I do think it’s a great buy at $1200 the comparable monitor to the studio display would be the LG UltraFine 27EP950-B 27” 4K HDR OLED Monitor and it’s $3k as well.

I’m also not suggesting the studio display isn’t overpriced, it is. But I think the wishlist everyone has for a display in the $2k range is unrealistic when professional grade non-Apple 4k monitors with miniLED or OLED are running in the $3k range.

 

[Quu]

You’re severely under estimating how much it costs to add 11 entire diagonal inches to a display. I wish we lived in a world where I found the Studio Display to be unbelievably overpriced garbage, but in the world we live in that isn’t the case. The monitor market is a travesty and considering apple cannot make their own panels they can’t exactly do a lot about it and still make money.

TVs are only so cheap because they’re a platform to sell you ads, which is how they cover their large screen sizes. This is likely why Samsung is pushing sponsored reviews of their M7/M8 monitor so much.

OLED also seems to be cursed at higher sizes than phones, but I admit I don’t know how they manage it so easily on TVs. Maybe the density?

The new QD-OLED being used in the Alienware is a new type of OLED that has a much longer life, it uses less energy by changing out the filters in the display and using more direct lighting for certain colours. Essentially means you don't need as much energy to produce as much light because the light goes through fewer filtering stages and as the energy (and heat) is lower the OLED's last longer meaning they don't burn in as quickly.

This is why it has taken until QD-OLED before we get desktop displays. And the Alienware is full HDR with per-pixel lighting with HDR1000 certification. It provides a better image quality when it comes to darkness and lighting than the Studio display. You sacrifice resolution since it is essentially a 1440p display as an ultrawide (5120x1400 I believe its total res is).

My point is though OLED has traditionally been out of reach, this display launched before the studio and offers some compelling features. The Studio lacks HDR, and in my opinion HDR1000 is the minimum to be certified. My monitor is HDR400 and I don't consider it to have HDR, it's a gimmick at that low brightness and without individual lighting zones (and a lot of them).

The MacBook is only 16” and 3024x1964… I don’t think you can draw any comparisons to 27” 4k and 5k screens. The Asus 27” is the closest thing (that I can think of) to what people want and it’s $3k.

The Alienware is only 1440 resolution and I do think it’s a great buy at $1200 the comparable monitor to the studio display would be the LG UltraFine 27EP950-B 27” 4K HDR OLED Monitor and it’s $3k as well.

I feel you can draw some comparisons because the 16" has that amazing display (with a higher PPI) in a very thin package (which costs more) in a low energy package (which costs more) and contains an entire functioning high-end computer within it (which costs more).

Trading out all those computer components to make the display larger and thicker is really whats needed. Now I get what you're saying regarding the panel sizes but Apple has a lot of sway here. They are doing deals for iPads, iPhones, Laptops. They're not always using LG and their contemporaries. They can use AU Optronics, they're using a lot of Japenese and even Chinese screen producers now. They could totally negotiate to include larger panels cut from mother glass, they're already cutting them for the smaller panels they use on the LCD equipped iPads and laptops.

As for a comparison to the Studio, obviously the LG Ultrafine 5K which lacks HDR like this one does, it is cheaper and has a removable stand and power cord. In some ways its superior but it still uses the older 2017 panel that the Studio uses, I believe it's the same screen in-fact. I don't see 4K vs 5K as being worth this almost 3x price premium unless the display has HDR which it doesn't.

 

[theluggage]

By that thinking my laptop the 16" MacBook Pro should be $7,000.

The MacBook is only 16” and 3024x1964… I don’t think you can draw any comparisons to 27” 4k and 5k screens. The Asus 27” is the closest thing (that I can think of) to what people want and it’s $3k.

Thing is, two months ago you could buy an Intel iMac with a comparable 5k screen to the Studio Display starting at $1800 - it is very tempting to equate the computer part of the iMac to a $1100 i5 Mini and say that, therefore a Studio display should cost $700. Of course, pricing doesn't work like that...

Then there's also the 24" M1 iMac - which doesn't have miniLED but does have a 4.5k display rather than a bog standard UHD one - and even the 21.5" 4k before that used to have a true 4k display (i.e. a full 4096x2304 rather than 3840x2160) so Apple really have built up customer expectations of relatively cheap displays at "custom" resolution.

Most likely is "economies of scale" - generally with electronics and other mass-produced components prices fall dramatically the more you make. MacBook Pros and - probably - even 24" iMacs sell in larger quantities than 5k iMacs, so it is more viable for them to use custom display panels. ... and now, you have other factors cannibalising the 5k iMac (or equivalent mini+display combo) market:

• The new 24" iMac is more powerful and has a better display than the old 21.5" iMac - and will be big enough and fast enough for some customers who would previously have bought the 27" (or, potentially, a Mini + 27" display combo).
• The old Intel Mini was knobbled by the Intel Integrated Graphics vs. the 27" iMac's discrete GPU. The new M1 Mini has a much better GPU so it's a better competitor to the 27" iMac - and a large proportion of Mini buyers will go for third-party 4k displays.
• Likewise, for a long time there was no "headless" Mac between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro (first, the unloved Trashcan which was always $3k+, then the serious-callers-only $6k+ 2019 Mac Pro). That forced a lot of people to buy iMacs when they really wanted a headless Mac that gave them a far wider choice of display types and formats. Apple have now addressed that market with the Mac Studio - which will not only decimate the potential 5k iMac market but, since a lot of Mac Studio buyers will have no intention of buying an Apple display, also restrict the market for the Studio Display.

Basically, even if Apple had managed to make something like the studio display for ~$1000 (I don't think anything less is feasible) they still wouldn't have sold in anything like the quantities of the old 5k iMac now that there are better "headless" options.

In terms of display quality, the Studio Display is undoubtably excellent & there's no real 5k competition but:

• It's essentially the same tech that was in the iMac 5 years ago and it's rather surprising that it is still ahead of the game today. With miniLED and other technologies in the pipeline, it doesn't really feel like a 5-year investment the way the old iMac displays have shaped up to be. I think people are also disappointed because they were expecting their new Apple Silicon desktop Mac to come with some big advance in display quality.
• Building power supply with enough oomph to charge a 16" MacBook Pro into such a slim enclosure, without resorting to a huge power brick, is impressive, but as much use as a chocolate teapot if you're buying the display to pair with a desktop Mac - and ois probably part of the reason for the high price.
• ...and if you do have a laptop as well as a desktop (you freak!), there's only one video/96W charging-capable input so you can't plug your laptop in without unplugging the desktop (even if you just want to charge it at full speed).
• It's impressive how much sound quality Apple can squeeze out of built-in speakers with no front-facing grilles... but a significant portion of Studio display buyers who do audio/video production are going to be using external audio interfaces and proper monitor speakers, and the SD won't replace those.
• You can buy a cheap, but quite usable and good-looking display with a height-adjustable stand for $400. Apple want $400 extra just for the adjustable stand. OK, yeah, small quantities = expensive, but Apple have ensured small quantities by not building such a basic function into the standard model.
• Non-removable power cable - just says "cheap" and "bad design" on a premium-priced display from a company that like to blow their own trumpet about design (sorry, Apple, but there's no benefit in making the display so thin, there is a benefit in making it thick enough to accommodate the necessary standard connectors and VESA mounting holes - good designers understand the design prerequisites).

...and let's be clear, a 4k display makes a perfectly good display for a Mac or Studio. Yes, 5k is optimum for a 27" Mac display but there's some ridiculous hyperbole here about anything less than 5k being somehow unusable.

 

[Quu]

I think my real critism is that it's overpriced for what it is. But if they'd just added a FALD backlighting system they could have charged another $1,000 (making it $2,499 instead of $1,499) and I'd have been sold.

Right now this monitor feels closer to a $699 value because that is a reasonable price for a 4K 27". Yes it's not 5K, but I honestly don't value a 4K to 5K difference in 2.8x the price. Especially with all the other extras they did which make it unpalatable.

The power cord, the stand situation, the thicker bezels compared to others (it's literally 2x the size of my Dell), the poor contrast ratio for its price (1000:1 when my Dell is 2000:1), no real HDR capability. Then they put in a Webcam and Speakers that I frankly will never ever use but I'm sure are meaningful to those who do video conferencing on a regular basis which has become more common.

It's just like if there is a spectrum I feel they just missed off some crucial features to be able to charge a premium for it but that's just my opinion I'm not dealing in cold facts here, it's just my honest assessment. I don't think a 10,000 MiniLED PCB in the back of the display would cost them an extra $1,000 but I'd pay it to get such a feature, that would be truly premium.

 

[CalMin]

I think my real critism is that it's overpriced for what it is. But if they'd just added a FALD backlighting system they could have charged another $1,000 (making it $2,499 instead of $1,499) and I'd have been sold.

As much as I love this Apple Studio Display, I can't disagree that it feels expensive. But I don't think it feels like it's a poor value. Admittedly, value is subjective and so if the display doesn't do the things you care about it's going to feel like a poor value to you.

But - poor (subjective) value doesn't mean it sucks. I know folks want all these specs (more nits, mini-LED panels, HDR labels, more, more, more...) but the truth of it is that it doesn't matter in use to a large number of people who might buy this monitor. Personally, I value the MacOS integration above all else. I know that my 14" M1Pro MBP display has all the specs but, to my eye, the ASD looks just as good. Sure the deep blacks aren't quite as black, and the highlights aren't quite as bright, but the image quality absolutely stunning.

Also - I had no idea about 4K vs 5k and MacOS scaling until I saw some of the arguments about this panel. What I can tell you is that I bought 3 different 4K panels in December and returned each and everyone of them because they didn't look good to me subjectively. There was something 'not right' about how they looked. And I was coming off a 2560 x 1600 non-retina 30" Dell. The 4K panels should have blown my mind, but none of them did.

The ASD just works right out of the box - no glitches, no failures to sleep/wake or other compatibility issues that I have seen with other non-Apple monitors. The sound is amazing and I love that I can adjust volume and brightness from the keyboard. Even autobrightness works really well. Heck the webcam is good enough for work Zoom calls and people get a kick out of Center Stage when someone else walks into the frame.

It's not labeled HDR, but it's more HDR than some HDR-labeled monitors. 600 nits might not be the sexy 1,000 nits of other monitors, but my desk is alongside a window and on a sunny day, I have no problems with the ASD. The colors 'pop' comparably to the MacBook's display and they look perfect side-by-side.

I started this thread because I felt that the YouTuber's were giving this thing short-shrift based on the specs, but not actual use. They also beat up on it because of price vs competition. I can't defend the price, but come on it's Apple - the same company that charges $19 for a polishing cloth. But it doesn't suck. Far from it. For me, it has been $1600 well spent.

 

[CaptRB]

I'm a professional photographer and I'm using a Dell Ultra 4K monitor. I use it side-by-side with my iMac 27 with 5K screen.

The glossy Mac screen is not ideal for my work and I often prefer the Dell. There is basically very little practical difference regarding resolution. Color is VERY close.

So now I've ordered a Mac Studio for 3000 bucks, which is what my iMac cost WITH the 5K monitor built in. It's pretty hard to swallow the new Mac monitor for 2000 bucks on top of that. It really doesn't spec out for the price. And they are absolutely out of their minds charging 400 bucks for the stand option and not making the cord separate. It may not be a cheaply built unit, but the marketing feels VERY cheap and akin to gouging.

So even though I can pretty much afford what I want, I won't throw money away either. Some folks buy Apple or Tesla almost like it's a cult. I'm not one of those people.


Robert

 

[edanuff]

If you are using the display for text rather than images, then 5K versus 4K is a pretty big deal. For text work, you should never run a Mac at anything other than 200% scale. This is actually not a subjective opinion, at any other scale you’re defeating the font rendering engine by resampling the screen image from 5K to 4K. So, yes there are great 4K displays but their use on the Mac is compromised by either giving you less screen space or having a degraded image quality. If you’re doing photo work then a 4K monitor won’t have exactly the same problems. I do think that Apple could have and should have made Mac OS work well with 4K displays at fractional scale but at some point they likely came to the conclusion that then vast majority of Mac users were using displays that Apple provided (laptops, iMacs) which they had control over the resolution and pixel density of and that they weren’t going to bother making the rendering system truly scale independent the way that Windows did.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

So now I've ordered a Mac Studio for 3000 bucks, which is what my iMac cost WITH the 5K monitor built in. It's pretty hard to swallow the new Mac monitor for 2000 bucks on top of that.

The iMac cost 3K? What was it’s configuration/performance vs the Mac Studio you have now?

 

[CaptRB]

If you are using the display for text rather than images, then 5K versus 4K is a pretty big deal. For text work, you should never run a Mac at anything other than 200% scale. This is actually not a subjective opinion, at any other scale you’re defeating the font rendering engine by resampling the screen image from 5K to 4K. So, yes there are great 4K displays but their use on the Mac is compromised by either giving you less screen space or having a degraded image quality. If you’re doing photo work then a 4K monitor won’t have exactly the same problems. I do think that Apple could have and should have made Mac OS work well with 4K displays at fractional scale but at some point they likely came to the conclusion that then vast majority of Mac users were using displays that Apple provided (laptops, iMacs) which they had control over the resolution and pixel density of and that they weren’t going to bother making the rendering system truly scale independent the way that Windows did.

I'm also a writer. With my current iMac 5K and 4K Dell, I frequently use both screens to update drafts. There's really (again) not much difference using industry standard software like Final Draft. I don't see a big difference in sharpness, but maybe the 5K has a tiny advantage. But the Dell is actually less fatiguing because of the matte screen. Both are excellent displays.

I'm shooting with the very best Nikon cameras and lenses, plus we just finished a feature film (shot on a Sony F55). The Dell monitor is VERY good and it's five years old!

Apple should have included the adjustable stand and maybe tried for a slightly larger screen. That would have gone a LONG way towards getting my order. It's certainly a good monitor, but the value is really in the toilet. 2 grand for the Studio Display with 400 bucks toward the stand? Crazy sauce. And that's coming from a guy who spends silly amounts of money on high-end audio!

Robert